I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax". It can be previewed and ordered at www.climateofcorruption.com. Additional information about my book and views can be found on my YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/climateofcorruption.

People celebrate in front of the White House with a cardboard cutout of the US President Barack Obama in Washington on November 7, 2012. Obama was re-elected late Tuesday, November 6, 2012, making history when he won a second term in the White House defeating Republican challenger Mitt Romney. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

I switched channels after the Ohio results came in and intentionally watched a really dumb action movie in order to get tired enough to sleep. Still in a disconsolate state of shock the next morning, I was in no mood for post-mortem could’a-should’a-would’a mental replays, even lacking sufficient emotional capacity to muster up anger.

But this is a resilient country. We will survive. And there’s much we can all do to make it better…stronger. And who knows, maybe things won’t be as bad as I have imagined during the president’s second term. Having no more elections to face, maybe now he won’t be as bound to accede to dictates of his far left base. Maybe Democrats and Republicans can find enough common negotiating space to prevent budgetary sequestration from being triggered, and to avoid a disastrous economic plunge over the fiscal cliff.

These are only a couple of the overarching issues that will drive and shape future developments. Within those larger dynamics there are some smaller, yet very important congressional and judiciary arenas where motivated voters can still exert considerable influence. Let’s consider three of them.

Just hours after President Obama was re-elected, the U.S. backed a U.N. call to renew debate over a draft Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Even many U.N. delegates and gun control activists believe this process was put on hold due to presidential campaign concerns. While ATT is represented as a means to regulate only government-to-government transfers and direct sales by manufacturers to governments, it is broadly perceived by skeptics as a strategy for those who oppose Second Amendment rights to ultimately achieve their goal of prohibiting private firearms ownership through vague, innocuous language without media attention.

Under current plans, the treaty will be submitted to nations early next year for virtually-assured signature and ratification upon receiving a two-thirds vote. And while U.S. treaty ratification will also require an unlikely two-thirds Senate approval… according to a paper published by legal scholar David Kopel and his colleagues in the Bringham Young University Journal of Public Law, there are many ways unratified treaties can work their ways into U.S. laws.

The authors conclude : “For example, some eminent international disarmament experts have taken the position that the president of the United States may announce that a treaty has entered into force, and thereby become the law of the United States even if the U.S. Senate has never voted to ratify the treaty. The United States Supreme Court has cited unratified treaties (and even an African treaty), and various contemporary foreign law sources, as guidance for interpreting United States constitutional provisions. Likewise, other scholars, writing in a U.N. publication, argue that United Nations gun control documents (notwithstanding the fact that the documents, on their face, have no binding legal effect) represent ‘norms’ of international law.”

On June 29th, 130 Republican House members sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton arguing that the proposed treaty infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter charges that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” The lawmakers adamantly insist that the U.S. Government has no right to support a treaty that violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Although Democrats maintain that the treaty poses no Second Amendment threat, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, cautions gun owners to take this initiative seriously. He believes that the U.N. “…is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

There are also some Obama-backed U.N. treaties that defeated globalist-oriented lame-duck members of Congress with nothing to lose may successfully help to push through for ratification before leaving office. One is the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which would subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If approved, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, and seabed mining.

As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries. This apparently is in penance for America’s audacity in perpetuating prosperity yielded by our Industrial Revolution.

Like the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol debacle that preceded it, this most recent LOST cause embodies the progressive ideal of subordinating the sovereignty of nation states to authoritarian dictates of a world body. The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free.

And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.

There are also some upcoming treaties with very admirable-sounding titles, but posing much less loveable U.N. regulatory intrusions into other matters of U.S. sovereignty. An example is a global Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which was signed by our U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice (now famous for false public statements about the Benghazi attack). We already have numerous organizations and statutes that address these needs without U.N. busybodies butting in. Another is a U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Child, a broadside attack on parent’s rights to limit media programs they can watch, or determine which church they attend.

According to the annual “Regulator’s Budget” compiled last year by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis, the employment of federal government regulators has climbed 13% since Obama took office, while private sector jobs shrank by 5.6%. In fact, if the federal government’s regulatory operations were a business, their $54 billion budget would make them one of the 50 the largest in the country… bigger than McDonald’s, Ford, Disney and Boeing combined.

Now, with his re-election behind him, President Obama can plow “Forward”, using the EPA and other agencies to expand regulatory intervention into wide-ranging aspects of our lives and economy. Particularly hard hit will be those which are highly energy-dependent.

The American Council for Capital Formation estimates that the new EPA regulations already in place will result in 476,000 to 1,400,000 lost jobs by the end of 2014. Management Information Services, Inc. foresees that up to 2.5 million jobs will be sacrificed, annual household income could decrease by $1,200, and gasoline and residential electricity prices may increase 50% by 2030. The Heritage Foundation projects that the greenhouse gas regulations will cost nearly $7 trillion (2008 dollars) in economic output by 2029.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I understand that the Law of the Sea Convention is a long read, but it would be good to read and understand it before putting opinions to print. The Convention does not restrict the US navy beyond the 12 mile territorial sea, and in the territorial sea it protects the rights and freedoms we want to maintain.

The International Seabed Authority does not have jurisdiction over fisheries – there is no excuse at all for getting that point wrong. It would only regulate oil or gas beyond the extended continental shelf – which for the US effectively encloses every potential hydrocarbon deposit on the continental shelf or margin. We should share in the royalties beyond the 200 mile exclusive economic zone because that was part of the agreement we sought under Nixon, Ford and Reagan. But while the highest shared rate is 7%, the average rate is close to 2% because of the exclusion of royalty payments for the first 5 years and a 1% per year rise to 7% so the higher rate is only paid more than halfway through the life of the well. In return, we secure international recognition over resources that were not recognized as ours under the Truman Proclamation or the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf.

The convention also provides international recognition of exclusive access and title to seabed minerals when mined in accordance with the Convention, and ensures these rights are respected by all 164 parties to the Convention.

Royalties are paid in return for all nations giving up their right to exploit areas of the seabed claimed by others – just as an oil company or mining company pays a royalty to a private land owner for access to minerals on their land. This was proposed by President Nixon in 1970 and reaffirmed by President Reagan when we returned to the LOS negotiations in early 1982 as part of an agreement he would accept.

Any plan for distribution of royalties have to be approved by consensus of the Council. Since the US is guaranteed a permanent seat on the Council, and since the Assembly cannot reverse or replace the council’s decision, once we join the US will have a veto over distribution plans and can block those we feel are inappropriate. Whether or not the US is party, these royalties will be paid and distributed – but only by taking our seat on the Council will we have a say in how they are distributed.

If there were any real problems, not unsubstantiated and misinformed tales, they would have turned up in 18 years of operation of the International Seabed Authority. Instead, the ISA has approved every one of the 17 applications for exclusive mining rights, the Authority has written sound and reasonable regulations governing seabed activities, and the members of the authority have endorsed over and over again the 1994 Agreement on Implementation that incorporated fixes to all six problem areas identified by President Reagan. Not only have Germany and the United Kingdom, the two nations that stood with Reagan in holding out for repairs, joined the Convention, they have each had their mine site claims approved by the Authority. Germany has been exploring their site since 2006 and the UK is beginning their work now. Meanwhile, the US has lost two of its original four seabed mining claims and US business says they will not develop the remaining two until we secure international recognition through the Convention.

The US oil and gas industry and the sole remaining US seabed mining company say that the Convention is essential to their development of the deep seabed’s resources. I’ll have to go with their views over a writer with a non-profit background who doesn’t have to deal with international resources claims.

Actually reading the things that he is criticizing is not one of Pr. Bell’s strengths. He has a long history misunderstanding issue for want of actually reading the relevant documents. For example, just a few months ago he criticized President Obama because “80% of President Obama’s Drought Relief Bill Is For Food Stamps”[1]. He had in fact conflated to entirely separate bills, both of which were sponsored by the Republican Party (the clever reader will note that the House of Representatives has been controlled by the Republican Party since 2010). There was the “Farm Bill” (Federal Agriculture and Risk Management Act / H.R. 6083) which would extend an existing law passed in 2008 and there is separate “Drought Relief Bill” ( Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012 / HR 6233).

A bit more recently, he criticized President Obama for providing “a stimulus loan to Fisker Automotive, Inc., a politically-connected start-up company, to help finance development of a $100 thousand Karma ‘economy’ car which is actually being built in Finland” which was was authorized under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109-58)[2]. The loan of course is NOT for the “Karma”, which is a high end automobile product built in Finland, but for the “Nina”, a mid priced vehicle not yet on the market place which will be built in the United States. Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (HR 6) introduced by two conservative Republicans, Richard Pombo [R-CA11] and William Thomas [R-CA22]. It passed the Republican controlled House 249 to 183 and passed the Republican controlled senate 85 to 12, which is to say, with the support of the majority of the Republican Caucus. None other than George W. Bush signed the bill into law.

Indeed just about every blog Pr. Bell writes is full of misinformation largely stemming from the fact he does not read anything other that talking points circulated by conservative think tanks.

You wrote:“According to the annual ‘Regulator’s Budget’ compiled last year by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis, the employment of federal government regulators has climbed 13% since Obama took office, while private sector jobs shrank by 5.6%. In fact, if the federal government’s regulatory operations were a business, their $54 billion budget would make them one of the 50 the largest in the country… bigger than McDonald’s, Ford, Disney and Boeing combined. Now, with his re-election behind him, President Obama can plow ‘Forward’, using the EPA and other agencies to expand regulatory intervention into wide-ranging aspects of our lives and economy. Particularly hard hit will be those which are highly energy-dependent.”

You present just tiny bit of the report without any context. For example you did not include these bits of information.

1) “The regulators’ budget’s share of the fiscal budget has declined over the last three years, and in FY 2012, outlays devoted to regulation are 1.3 percent of total requested outlays (Page 9, 14 of 38).

2) “While the regulator’s budget represents a small fraction of the total fiscal budget, its share has grown from well under one percent through the mid-1970s to over 1.5 percent over the last decade.“ (Page 9, 14 of 38).

3) The first decade of the 21st century witnessed a larger rate increase in the budgets devoted to regulatory agencies than the previous two decades—with a 63.1 percent increase between fiscal years 2000 and 2010. (Page 10, 15 of 38).

So, under the Obama administration (2009 – 2012), the total outlays for regulatory agencies has declined 3% but under the Bush administration (2001 – 2008) it increased dramatically. So the increases in regulatory costs you bemoan are not the result of Mr. Obama but Mr. Bush. In 2001 total outlays for both Social and Economic regulatory expense (Figure 1, Page 10) was just under 30 BUSD but in 2008 it was over 44 BUSD. After four years of the Obama Administration, it is 50 BUSD.

I would invite the interested reader to compare Pr. Bells summary with the one in the paper he referenced but did not provide a link for.

Are you perchance the very same daviddelosangeles that posted a trash review of my book on Amazon while admitting he never read it. Surely not, since you accuse me of presenting opinions regarding reports not fully read. Must be someone else. Sorry about the confusion.

No, I have not written any reviews of anything ever at Amazon.com much less on your book. I believe that you are referring to “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax” [1]. There are 31 reviews of your book and none of them have the name “David”, much less “David de los Ángeles” or “daviddelosangeles”.

The most recent comment (May 18, 2012) begins by saying:“Have I read this book? No. Am I going to? No. I have read Bell’s columns in Forbes, and what I have found seem to be deliberate i[n]accuracies.”. I would draw your attention to the note above the review which says “Another global warming denial screed, May 18, 2012 By Dallas R. Dunlap (Brooksville, Fl)”

There is another frequent corespondent here at Forbes.com with that same name. It is dallasdunlap [2] who has commented a number of time on your blogs under his own name. I would suspect that these two commentors are one and the same and I am neither.

Quite aside from the fact that we have different names, we have entirely different writing styles. I am surprised that you would confuse the two of us.

You were correct to point out that fishing rights are not included and this will be corrected. This is all correctly discussed in my full article on this subject which is prominently posted with this one.

You can also note that I am certainly not alone regarding the vioews expressed here on LOST. For example, I quote a former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense who said: “While LOSTs navigational tenets for operations on high seas, including economic zones, are of little dispute, some of the othert ‘non-navigational’ provisions are really what frighten detractors…But what they’re really getting at is if you want to harvest Davy Jones’ locker you need to ask pretty please of…tahdah…the ISA”

And just for the record, while am employed by a non-profit (a university) in a center that I raised the funds to create…I do actually have international business experience. I have co-founded several high-tech companies, including onw which grerw through mergers amd acquisitions from 4 people to employ more than 8,000 professionals and which ultimately went public on the New York Stock Exchange. In fact, I like free enterprise quite a lot.

Yes, apparently I did conflate you with the other David…sincere apologies.

But I didn’t conflate the two separate biolls in my “Obama Drought Relief Bill” article as you suggest. I think I was pretty clear on that issue.

Nor was my references to to the Fisker handout in the article you cited inaccurate. Here, you are conflating the passage of the authorizing legislation with the specific crony selection of Fisker by the Obama DOE with apparent influence from Joe Biden. It’s also obvious that Biden/DOE/Fisker then conflated the car Fisker actually planned to build (only in Finland) with a different one we gave them the money to buiid in the US and probably never will. That’s probably even worse than conflation…possibly more like really stinky conflatulation,.

Finally, what I wrote about federal regulation costs did, in fact, come directly from the Regulator’s Budget report. As for contextual accuracy, although context is often interpretive, I stand by what I said. And those fgures don’t account for a legion of new IRS hires to regulate and enforce ObamaCare.

Although I write an opinion column, when it comes to facts, I make it a point not to make stuff up. Please accord me the same unconflated courtesy.

I am amazed that Larry in particular and Republicans in general were so surprised at losing this election. The poll aggregators never had President Obama’s chances as low as a 60% probability and the odds were above 70% for most of the election. From the very outset it was obviously a contest between Democratic GOTV operations and Republican voter suppression strategies. By the end of the campaign, the TPubs had succeeded in pissing off the Democratic base to the point that they would stand in line for 7 hours to vote for the President and against Romney. Here’s a clue for next time: With modern communications, everyone will find out what a candidate says. You won’t win many Latino votes speaking in favor of “self deportation,” and you don’t win votes from women by repeatedly speaking of “legitimate” rape or “forcible vs unforcible” rape. And, if you don’t conceal your contempt for middle class and working class people, they might vote against you. But the demographics are such that the Republicans have won the popular vote in only one of the past six Presidential elections, and the demographic trends are continuing. The Republican hold on the House is made possible only by diligent gerrymandering. So, Larry, you shouldn’t be disconsolate about losing. It was almost inevitable. Get used to it.

Xmas and other loan offer hurray! hurray!! hurray!!! it is Xmas season and world wide loan has come to put a smile in your face this season. contact us today for your Xmas and other loans today without stress. contact us through email: worldwideloanfundplc@gmail.com

ST MARK LOAN FIRM Head office==912 Coeur D Alene Avenue venice, CA 90291.united kingdom EMAIL:stmarkloansetup@gmail.com ======================== This is a Christian and a charitable loan Organization formed to help people in need of help and such as financial help. So are you are going through financial difficulty ? Or you are in any financial mess? ======================= We give out loans from the range of $1,000 to $90,000,000 USD,at 2.0% interest rate Our loans are well insured and maximum security is our priority,ST MARK LOAN FIRM is a legitimate and well known British approved loan lending company. ====================== LOAN APPLICATION FORM PREFIX {MR.,MRS.,MiSS.,DR.,etc.} 1)YOUR NAME 2)YOUR COUNTRY 3)YOUR OCCUPATION 4)YOUR MARITAL STATUS 5)PHONE NUMBER 6)MONTHLY INCOME 7)ADDRESS 8)PURPOSE OF LOAN 9)LOAN REQUEST 10)TELEPHONE 11)LOAN DURATION

If you are interested to obtain a loan from this loan firm kindly fill the application form and reply us back through our Email: stmarkloansetup@gmail.com Thanks and Regards DAVID WIILAMS

Enter Your CommentST MARK LOAN FIRM Head office==912 Coeur D Alene Avenue venice, CA 90291.united kingdom EMAIL:stmarkloansetup@gmail.com ======================== This is a Christian and a charitable loan Organization formed to help people in need of help and such as financial help. So are you are going through financial difficulty ? Or you are in any financial mess? ======================= We give out loans from the range of $1,000 to $90,000,000 USD,at 2.0% interest rate Our loans are well insured and maximum security is our priority,ST MARK LOAN FIRM is a legitimate and well known British approved loan lending company. ====================== LOAN APPLICATION FORM PREFIX {MR.,MRS.,MiSS.,DR.,etc.} 1)YOUR NAME 2)YOUR COUNTRY 3)YOUR OCCUPATION 4)YOUR MARITAL STATUS 5)PHONE NUMBER 6)MONTHLY INCOME 7)ADDRESS 8)PURPOSE OF LOAN 9)LOAN REQUEST 10)TELEPHONE 11)LOAN DURATION

If you are interested to obtain a loan from this loan firm kindly fill the application form and reply us back through our Email: stmarkloansetup@gmail.com Thanks and Regards DAVID WIILAMS